## Facts

- Noura Jackson was prosecuted for the 2005 killing of her mother, Jennifer Jackson.
- The State’s theory was that Jackson acted from financial motive, seeking control of property and insurance/retirement proceeds.
- The State’s proof was entirely circumstantial; Jackson did not confess, and no forensic evidence directly implicated her.
- At a two-week 2009 jury trial, the State presented extensive proof through dozens of witnesses and hundreds of exhibits.
- Jackson did not testify and relied on her constitutional right to remain silent.
- During the State’s rebuttal closing argument, the lead prosecutor moved toward Jackson, addressed her directly in a loud voice, and demanded that she “tell us where you were,” or words to that effect.
- Jackson moved for a mistrial based on an unconstitutional comment on her silence; the trial court denied the motion.
- After trial, the defense learned the State had not disclosed until after trial a third police statement by a key prosecution witness.

## Issues

1. Whether the prosecutor’s rebuttal closing argument directly addressing Jackson and demanding an explanation was an impermissible comment on her right to remain silent and not testify under the federal and state constitutions.
2. Whether the State violated due process by failing to disclose, until after trial, a third statement given to police by a key witness.
3. Whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the constitutional errors were harmless, given the circumstantial record.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court held the prosecutor’s remark was a constitutionally impermissible comment on Jackson’s decision not to testify.
- The Court held the State violated due process by failing to disclose the key witness’s third statement until after trial.
- The Court held the State did not establish harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the errors and their combined effect.
- The Court vacated Jackson’s conviction and sentence and remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Prosecutorial argument violates the privilege against self-incrimination if it was intended to comment on the defendant’s failure to testify or if the jury would naturally and necessarily understand it as such.
- Due process requires the State to disclose evidence favorable to the accused, including material impeachment information; nondisclosure of a material witness statement can require relief.
- When constitutional error is found, the State bears the burden to show the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; failure to meet that burden requires reversal.
- In a case resting on circumstantial proof, improper comment on silence and suppressed impeachment evidence may be especially likely to affect the verdict and must be assessed in context, including their combined impact.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the prosecution both improperly highlighted the defendant’s silence during closing argument and withheld a key witness statement, and the State could not show beyond a reasonable doubt that these errors did not affect the outcome in a circumstantial case.


State v. Jackson, 444 S.W.3d 554 (Tenn. 2014)